Managing a business effectively, efficiently, and innovatively is an art, and we discuss how to make that happen here. In this space, we discuss the methods, tools, techniques, and tips for making your business thrive, from initial planning to redesign and reinvention. The discussion is open, the topics varied, and the opportunities to learn can be endless. Enjoy!

Empowering Employees

12/18/2017

A few evenings ago, i happened to be at home with no papers to grade or projects to review, and put on Public Broadcasting. It just so happened that one on my favorite Agatha Christie novels was being televised, Body in the Library, and I knew that would be the main event of the evening.

As I watched movie, a British version by their equivalent of PBS, it came to me that the genius of Dame Christie was not limited just to murder and mayhem; he also provided some subliminal messages to the audience that many of us in the business world could easily adopt ourselves. let me suggest just a few for discussion here.

First, never jump to conclusions before you have a reasonable set of facts.Miss Marple, the amateur criminologist, will get you every time. In this case, while it was clearly murder from the outset, and Dame Christie provides a complex set of circumstances that keeps you bouncing between characters, nearly until the ending, when suddenly all becomes clear.

Unfortunately, in much of society, people pick up strands of data, not even information really, and quickly 'decide' the result. Usually, they are wrong, but they have done so much damage to themselves and their reputation, and to others that regardless of the outcome, people are scarred unnecessarily. First impressions can be a hypothesis to be proven (or dis-proven) but they should not be the sole factor in decision-making.

Second, make sure you truly have facts and not simply plausible conjecture.Inspector Slack, the intrepid detective in the novel, has the reputation for looking twice at everything, and then searching again to prove or disprove what is before him. That riles his superiors, and confounds his associates sometimes, but it leads to good decisions. In our world of communications and technology, what seems to be happening might be something completely different. How many never check resumes of prospects, or 'think' someone is the 'expert' in an area, and move forward, only to find they were completely wrong in their approach? Assembling data still makes it data--it is the context that transforms it into information, which must them be checked for authenticity, applicability, and reality. All too often, each of us has skipped those steps and paid the price.

Third, when you are too close to something, recognize it and step back. One of the things I like about this novel is that it is set in the countryside in England, where people who live on the nearby properties are your friends, neighbors, and often professional associates. The Chief Inspector lived next to the prime suspect ( they are both retired colonels) and both active in the administration of the district. The Chief Inspector logically would like to prove that his friend is not involved in the murder. he accepts his word for it, and then actively steers the investigation away from him, in any way he can, including taking every step of the investigation with his subordinates.

Logic should say that you trust your associates and subordinates to good the job expected on them. If you do not have trust, you do not have a team--you do have a group which happens to be in the same place at the same time, but working to different objectives. Leadership often gives way to mentorship in situations where you either have a personal interest or some other conflict that ought to ring bells to say--STAY AWAY FROM HERE. That does not mean to put up a wall so high you cannot provide oversight; it does mean that you trust the judgement of others that they will bring the truth to you.

Finally, teams get answers, not groups working discordantly. Working through issues with each member of the team providing their expertise provides much better answers than a kluged together supposition based on little or no facts. Put the people in charge who know how to get those answers; let them lead the group as you become their mentor. A good leader does not always have to be 'in charge'. A good leader does have to engender respect, provide mentorship, and be ready to assist where needed to achieve the desired result. Most efforts, however are team efforts, not solo efforts.

One additional comment here. Look for the Miss Marple's of the world; those with an immense knowledge base that can provide observations and answers where none seem to be present. These people are not usually out in front leading, they are more generally in the background and hard to find. if you do find one, you have a jewel that will light the way to success.

Bottom line here: Sometimes a good detective story shows you the way to solve difficult problems, even if they do not involve murder or mayhem.

05/10/2016

Some form of sabotage exists in most companies; much of it relatively benign, but some amount causes real damage, economically and administratively for management. I began thinking about that topic some weeks ago, during a discussion over lunch with several professional friends, one of whom was involved in trying to develop a company policy designed to reduce or prevent sabotage, at their request.

My concern was that it seemed to me to be virtually impossible to prevent all but the most egregious forms of sabotage, especially that which is inadvertent, coming from someone with no real axe to grind or animosity for anyone. There are always people who sometimes disagree with decisions, but ‘agree to disagree’ and simply move on. There are others who let those decisions with which they disagree become subconscious irritants, which can reduce productivity, and create untoward results.

Among the small group, we were pretty much agreed that there were no hard-and-fast rules, that a great deal depended on hos decisions are made in the organization, and how inclusive management is in getting input and feedback on changes to policy and procedure. We left it at that, and our associate went back to his work after lunch probably thinking he still did not have a good approach for his task.

Then I read an article in the recent issue of Workforce Magazine, found the digital copy of the article and sent it to my friend. In the article by Bob Frisch, Rob Gifford, and Cary Greene, titled, “Sabotage in the Workplace is an Inside Job,”, these amazingly thoughtful writers described how they discovered an old World War II-era publication from the Office of Strategic Services (OSS – Now the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)) with a set of eight (8) tactics for encouraging (believe it or not) sabotage in the workplace. Most of these tactics are what we still see today. They are:

Insist on doing everything ‘though channels’ – Always follow the chain of command to the letter, and you will always be ‘correct’.

Make Speeches – Be an active debater, orator, and stump speaker every chance you get, and use a lot of time to prevent decisions

Refer matters to committees or working groups whenever possible to delay decisions even further

Bring up irrelevant issues whenever possible

Haggle over precise wording on communications, minutes, and resolutions

Refer back to matters discussed and decided previously to attempt to reopen those discussions

Always advocate caution and reasonableness as well as avoiding haste in decision-making

Engender a sense of ‘worry’ about any decision. As the authors say, ‘Raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated is within the jurisdiction of the group,’ or whether it might conflict with some higher policy or decision.

In short, make it as hard as possible to make decisions and execute them. Active saboteurs will use these tactics every chance they get, but they still seem to be publicly supporting the effort, just ‘cautious.’

The inadvertent or innocent saboteur may not realize that their ‘conservative’ approach is actually gumming up the works for others. They may have honest principles which they use to base their questions and opposition. It can be difficult to separate the innocent saboteur from those who are knowingly trying to prevent action. The article discusses several approaches to reducing occurrences. It is a great read, and my associate, after receiving it felt a lot more secure in recommending policies and practices to his client. You just might find the same.

02/18/2016

Developing, and then maintaining ethical practices in the workplace is not just a matter of announcing expected behaviors and trying to enforce them. People generally do not react well to arm-twisting or threats--instead they leave. if they are valued employees, it is the company or agency that loses, not the employee; who will often quickly find employment elsewhere.

In my mind, there are three perspectives to the answer to this question.

First, You have to have a program in place which defines the vision, ethically and culturally, that the employees know exists, and also know how they are expected to comply. That in itself can be a difficult task. It is more than simply putting up signs with trite slogans or lists of 'You musts...'. it must be clear, in language they understand, communicated to then, along with the importance of compliance, and reinforced periodically to ensure that behavior continues to meet expectations. You do not need a club to enforce expected behavior. What you need is the cooperation of employees, demonstrations that management follows the same rules, and assurance that the rules are enforced equally and fairly.

Second, expected outcomes in terms of behavior must be as important as productivity. Too many firms place more attention on productivity--its impact on the bottom line, and its influence over executives and shareholders. The result all too often is slippage in quality of work--products or services--all designed to overlook 'minor' flaws so that numbers meet expectations. When reduced quality is know by management, but not corrected, employees see that behaviors and expectations are not longer as critical and their work quality level is not important.

Similarly, when employees are criticized for work habits, but supervisors and managers seem to be living under differing rules, employees will eventually expect that they also can live under different rules. When this happens, further slippages will occur, and eventually major problems surface which management had not expected.

Third, behavior needs to be monitored, expectations reinforced, and unacceptable behavior needs to be corrected. There are two sides to this situation. Management should not be seen simply as a punisher; rather, enforcement of values and behaviors should be evenly enforced. Positive reinforcement should accompany good work. it costs nothing but time to tell an employee or a group that their work is well-done. Simple awards, group reinforcement, and sometimes nothing more than a thank you will provide the stimulus for people to work harder, and at a higher quality level.

Conversely, When something does go wrong; when work is shoddy and not up to expected standards, corrective action needs to be taken, privately if possible, but taken in a way that employees understand that bad work is not acceptable. This applies to both lower level personnel and supervisors or managers. Consequences should be clearly outlined and explained to employees with periodic meetings, communications, or counseling sessions. Critical behaviors should be included in evaluation processes and during considerations for pay adjustments.

Creating and then maintaining programs designed to instill ethical, value-based behaviors in the workplace are not done in a vacuum, or informally. The organization must have an organized plan--one which everyone at all levels knows and understands, which is enforced fairly and evenly, and which carries with in the strong support of management at all levels.

10/31/2015

We have already seen that people usually makes decisions based on two things—free will, and experience. People usually react the way they have in the past, and according to how they have been taught over time. There are no secrets there. Assuming that people have been exposed to some level of rational and ethical thought, and decided that these precepts are ‘right’ for them, they will make decisions consistent with those precepts.

Individual decisions are generally less of a problem than group decisions. An individual who needs to decide something or take some action, will make that decision and move with it, whether it results in something positive or something negative—all involving their experience and their ethical upbringing.

Generally, people who lie and cheat see others in society do the same thing as others have done, but for whom those actions appear to bear no significant negative repercussions. This kind of view is sometimes called the ‘Bonnie & Clyde’ perspective, since people look to the antics of the two hoodlums and robbers as some kind of role model for doing adventurous, but dangerous things. They are willing to take their chances that either they will not be caught, or that the punishment will be lenient enough that their acts were worth their effort.

Each time this kind of activity occurs, others who observe the behavior feel that they can do similar things. It is appropriate for them, so they try to emulate their role models. If they also are not ‘caught’, it reinforces their feeling that that what they are doing is acceptable. Repetition without consequences can easily result in reinforcement of the view that what they are doing is really ‘acceptable’ instead of illegal or unethical, thus the Bonnie & Clyde Effect. Most of these kind of activities are individual in nature. Now, we need to move to community or collective decision-making, and see how that set of processes relates to the same free will and experience perspectives. At first glance, one might think that the same rules apply, the same potential misapplication of ethics and morality is in place, and many of the similar effects should occur. In fact, nothing could be more from the truth.

People working in groups think differently from those who can rely on independent thought. Individuals making independent decisions are responsible only for their own decisions. They can be held accountable for what they do as individuals.

In a sense, individual decisions are solely the result of ethical understanding and experience. People faced with decisions think about how they acted in the past, and whether or not those past decisions met the test of ethical acceptance. If the decision does meet that test then it can be executed without fear of possible reprisal. If it does not, the individual must decide how to either change the decision, or accept the potential consequences. Either way, these are personal decisions, impacted by their personal perspective, their personal ethical barometer, and their experience.

In a professional situation, the dilemma of how to act usually has a clear third dimension—the peer relationship. People tend to congregate with each other, learn from each other, and many adopt certain people within the firm as their role models—just as an individual might emulate some role model. However, the individual does not normally have that role model with them in person, contributing to their decision-making process. The corporate individual is part of a larger ‘community’ of some type, and needs to consider the views of others who may be contributing to a decision.

Within a corporate community, there are several influences which impact decision-making. Among them, we will discuss three which have, in my view, the most impact. First is the corporate authority figure; second, corporate culture; and third the corporate ‘ethos’. There is a considerable overlap among these three influences, and as shall see, their congruence is what really impacts decision-making.

Corporate authority is the ability within an organization to direct and/or influence actions in some specific way. It can be as simple as a supervisor directing a subordinate to perform work, and expect a specific result. It can also represent the pressure placed on an employee, a manager, or virtually anyone else in an organization by the rules enacted by the governing body, be it directors or senior executives. Corporate authority provides the formal direction expected, and provides a means for holding people accountable for their actions on behalf of the organization.

Corporate culture is the environment within which people work. More esoteric than formal authority, it consists of the expectations, the ‘unwritten rules’ by which people are expected to adhere to in working with their fellow employees, and the understanding of the boundaries within which each employee can perform their work. Culture ranges from the social expectations to the organization of the physical environment.

I once worked in a place where employees could have no family pictures on their desk—but a plant or two was perfectly OK. Management was subliminally trying to make the workplace pleasant, but at the same time separate from family life. They wanted employees to consider their fellow employees their ‘family at work’. Lots of group pictures of various employee section covered the walls, along with photos of award session and other company-related activities.

Decisions in a corporate culture are often made by teams or groups—where everyone has a voice, but some voices might be listened to with more diligence.

The ethos of the organization is its corporate soul. Ethos is defined (Oxford, WEB) as “The characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations.” As should be obvious here, there is an overlap between ethos and culture, but that overlap is not always easy to discern or understand. From the example above, both the ethos and culture of the company skew toward community ‘families’, and lessen the association with personal families. Ethos also tells the employee what is acceptable behavior in dealing with customers or clients and what is not. It can distinct in that respect from culture, in that the behavior with customers or clients—things external to the organization—may be quite different than relationships within the company.

Think about the Movie Wall Street , in which Gordon Gechko drives his employees to seek more and more business and wealth. He has a quite different approach with his employees professionally and socially, and an almost completely different sense of ethos when it comes to dealing with customers. In some ways, while ruthless throughout, he has a more paternalistic approach with the employees, while his ethical level in dealing with customers says in essence to ‘go get their money at all costs.’

The environment in the movie exhibits a distinct culture—a ruthless corporate culture, which says that people are there to make money—for themselves and for the firm—and that the firm takes care of those who produce and discards those who do not. The ethical standards, the beliefs, the ethos of the organization supports the culture, but goes much further in terms of lowering ethical standards when dealing with customers. Gechko’s bottom line, “Greed is Good”, describes well the interlacing of these two influencers.

In the next part, we talk about interactions, and the common space which organizes and rules the corporate environment from an ethical perspective.

For our purposes today (and for the rest of the series) we will be discussing ethics in terms of the first definition. They words here are “Moral”, “Principles”, Govern(ing)”, “Person”, “Group”, Behavior”. These principles define the moral correctness of conduct.

Moral correctness can be defined in many ways; virtually everyone has their own unique view of what they consider ‘correctness’, usually guided by philosophical or religious tenets which they have learned over time. Normally, they learn in three ways: through study of the classical philosophers, and those of more recent times; through study of the Bible, the Qu’ran, Buddha, Confucius, the Vida, and other religious texts; and through emulation and practice based on values inculcated through the family and community.

The results from learning are not necessarily consistent, nor are they necessarily able to provide a ‘positive’ result. People can learn behavior which we would not consider ethical today, but which they practice because they have adopted those modes of behavior. Others learn traditional ethical principles, but their practice of those principles leads them in dramatically differing directions. Dictators who practice genocide, or mass killing and harm have often had the benefit of philosophical and religious education (Hitler, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and others come to mind) , put their practices resulted in abominations. We see the same in the business world, where corporate leaders turn to theft, greed, and illegal practices, not to benefit their company, but most often to benefit themselves at the expense of others. These too have often had good formal educations and most would admit they had upbringings which included understanding of ethical standards.

I believe it is not too far-fetched to argue that ethics begins in the heart and mind of a person. That person makes decisions for a variety of reasons, and may simply decide that traditional moral considerations do not apply in their circumstance. We saw above in the Oxford definition, the cause of euthanasia—assisting in the death of individuals, either voluntarily or involuntarily—which is making headlines in some states where laws have been passed to assist in this type of activity. Here, people are making decisions that the normal rules which define that people do not kill other people, and people do not commit suicide, or be helped to commit suicide, do not apply.

There are two things at play here. First, people have the right of free will—most religions support that principle within bounds. In simple terms, everyone has the right to makes decisions which affect them, assuming that their decision does not violate some law. For those who are not religious, the laws of the states, and the traditional laws of morality normally apply. For those who practice religious beliefs, there is the additional requirement(s) to adhere to the precepts of their particular church.

The second point in play changes that moral sense, often in big ways. That is the sense of relativism which the Oxford Dictionary defines in this way:

Relativism: the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

Relativism provides the means for people to decide when, where, and how moral principles apply, and when those principles can be changed or disregarded to suit individual desires.As an example, Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, principals in the ENRON Corporation, both received exceptional educations, and were well-qualified to lead a major corporation in the energy field. They did so for a number of years, received awards for performance, and were considered leaders of their industry. Yet, in 2001 their company began to unravel, as it was revealed that they had used’ novel and innovative’ accounting practices to paint a brighter picture of their company. By 2004, the company was bankrupt and both Lay and Skilling were convicted of fraud.

The question here is WHY? Both of these men operated a vast operation, with seemingly bottomless resources, and a rosy future, even in the face of problems in the overall energy business. Lay and killing wanted more, and used their skills to manipulate both the organization of the company and the value of its assets to create a wholly fictitious balance sheet. They were caught as they tried to expand even further.

These individuals knew what they were expected to do. They had the knowledge and expertise to continue their success, but they wanted even more. Knowing that the securities laws were lax in several areas, the two men decided to ‘stretch’ the law even further, and make large profits for themselves. They decided that the relative benefit to themselves outweighed the need to provide profits to their stockholders and employees, so they simply changed the rules.

One of the principal underpinnings of ethics is the sense of accountability. People have the right to make decisions—even bad or illegal decisions—if they choose, but they also need to understand that making these decisions has consequences. These consequences may be minor, or they may be, as in the case of Lay and Skilling, destroy their lives.The first lesson here is that ethical conduct starts with people—if people do not adhere to a sense of morality and fairness, but instead decide they can do whatever they choose, even if illegal or unethical, then there are consequences for those individuals, and often others as well.

As we move through our discussion, I will provide more examples so that the discussion becomes a practical one, pinned to morals, relative choices, and consequences

06/13/2014

Many organizations use some variant of the Bell Curve for their evaluation processes. it is a well-tested instrument for diferentiating between exceptional, good, and poor employees. That is what is supposed to happen normally. However, that is not how the process always works. it can hurt otherwise good and loyal employees if the curve is not used objectively for evaluations.

When used neutrally, and described correctly, it is a useful tool. it does NOT have to designate good, exceptional; and poor-- only relative strengths between employees, based on some set of specific criteria describing desired outcomes.

However, that result is often not what happens. let me give you an example. An organization uses the '360 degree evaluation process'. That evaluation scheme is based on the Bell curve. It does what it is supposed to do, and, moreover, it uses a combination of personal views, peer views, and management views to makes its differentiation. When the system is used as it is intended, it does a good job of evaluating the 'complete person.'

However, when a responsible manager takes the information received, and 'adjusts' it based on effects not in the original scheme, harm results. I know of situations where the employees co-located with the management get better scores overall than those in outside efforts with clients. Since they are available for all the other little tasks the manager needs done, they sit in the manager's line of sight. In short, they get opportunities to excel that others do not.

Additionally, these evaluation schemes often have limitations. Everybody cannot be outstanding every time. Only a few can get bonuses and promotions. When management has their own ideas on who those employees should be, the final evaluation is often skewed in their direction.

It generally does not take too long to realize what is happening, and what its effect on employee morale and tenure will be. people understand that everyone cannot be exceptional, but most employees treasure the opportunity to show their skills, and receive some form of recognition, other than the normal couple of percentage point raises that everyone gets.

Be careful with the Bell curve. If you use it as it should be used, then you can spur increases in dedication and productivity. if it is misused, then turmoil, resentment, and personnel turnover all to often results.

01/02/2014

With the fall semester now behind, and the spring semester looming, I have had considerable time for reflection on several issues which seem to be popping up all over the literature. With increased frequency, one of the most popular seems to be through the 'agile method' at everything from modeling to application development, and into management in general. So, a few words on that subject here.

First, let us separate what are really two distinct things (Although the pulp press would have you think they are one). Agility, in general, is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances in a very short time frame. That is a skill, one which can be learned, and one which any manager should acquire over time.

Innovation often follows agility, as a manager realizes a problem, and recognizes a solution, then decides how to get from 'Point A' to 'Point B' with the least amount of turmoil or disruption. Often, that means taking a new road rather than sticking with established, traditional methods or practices in favor of new practices which achieve the goal just as well, or perhaps even better.

Thinking in this way has pitfalls. But then, virtually every decision to propose change has pitfalls. it is how you approach the issue, and then resolve it that should bear the weight of scrutiny. let's look at a real-life situation.

A good friend, Frank, owns a small temporary help firm catering to the IT industry. His rates are reasonable; his employees have been with him since he started his firm over ten years ago. His consultants are all independents, most of whom want to work short projects or limited time engagements. Some work only part-time. That has seemed to fit well with his clients, and his small firm has prospered. Eventually, he ran up against the same wall every successful small firm does in this industry--he began to cut into the work of a larger firm. That larger firm tried to buy him out, but he refused. The larger firm then started going actively after his clients, offering them lower rates, and more flexibility in their terms.

Rather than starting a bidding war over people, Frank visited each of his clients, explained what he believed was the fairness and flexibility--the agility, if you will-- of his rates, and the quality level of his people, and simply said he would continue to be available for their needs. A number of his clients noted that the larger firm had been in to see them, and they were impressed with the rates.

To those clients Frank indicated he was amenable to rate discussions, but he felt that his strength was the ability to provide consistent quality, and consistent staffing for each engagement. Frank pointed out the longevity of his staff, and the dedication of those people to specific clients, as they were needed by their clients. Without going overboard, he expressed his views in terms of the value-add to the client for the dollars they expended.

To each of his clients he indicated that if price were the constant factor for a decision, then he would understand. Frank took a great chance, but he won the dayand the argument. Every single client stayed with his firm because he guaranteed the value-add of his people. What Frank had to back up his proposals was a dedicated workforce, and consistency. of course he had occasional turover, as does any firm, but when employees were leaving, and a new employee coming on board, Frank ensured that there was sufficient overlap to provide training and knowledge of the clients to the new employee, and, on occasion, sent them over to the client at his own expense, as initial training and transition. In sum, Frank prospered on flexibility, dedication, and consistency, but he was not afraid to offer change when that change meant keeping a client.

Now that approach is quite different from the Agile Methodology. Originally created to provide a framework for software development, there are those in the industry who have begun to apply agile methods as a management skill. While I have no inherent opposaition to that premise, i hasten to add that the methodology is meant to provide rigor to a process change, when used as a management tool, but simply adopting the titles of the methodology, having daily and weekly meetings, and sporting 'We are Agile' teeshirts does not make what they do a response to the Agile methodology.

We have seen in the industry a number of these 'adoptions' of methods and techniques for use in ways they were never intedned to be used. Some efforts were successful, and others not so successful. Most of the unsuccessful one failed because they were truly unorganized, and their 'rigor' was only skin deep.

One recent project, on which I was the project manager for a short time, had a long history of failed and mediocre results. They were trying to develop a major system, despite opposition for most of thier major stakeholders, were routinely sidetracked in data collection, and were just as routinely torpedoed by these same stakeholders to the organization hads. You really had to question, as I often did, whether the project was fated to succeed. The organization had evolved the project from something dramtically different in scope, to something more strategic in nature, but simply did not have either the 'front office' support, or the experience in the senior staff to get the job done.

For those of us with military service, it is a bit like putting a major in charge of a large project, and having the colonlels and generals fighting to get the project stopped. There was no visible win. But the leader of the project, from within the organization, replaced the contractor support (That's how I got involved), and then started the slow, almost grinding process of winning over the rest of the organization.

One of my first acts was to look at this project through a modified agile lens. I carefully avoided using all the slogans and buzzwords--just directed the small development staff to look at the pieces of the puzzle. I told them to remember what the picture on the box looked like, but to take this in small pieces; ones we could develop and test, work out the bugs, and put it into production to replace the 'spaghetti code' which previously existed.

Unfortunately, that did not completely please the client; they wanted more 'agile'. So, we started using the agile terms, and had 'scrums' instead of meetings or reviews. You cannot imagine the difference in attitude as the client was now able to tell people we were using the official agile methodology. We still got the same work done, and progressed as wel expected, but the addition of several fairly useless term changes suddenly became as important as success.

I left shortly thereafter.

The bottom line, thinking agilly, as in being willing to adjust goals and objectives, and inmterim goals as well, in order to ensure that you stay on a line toward the ultimate objective is a perfectly acceptable way to develop software, business processes, data models, or whatever. it's getting the job done in an organizaed and efficient way, without veering too far off course, before someone realizes that corrections need to be made. Do that, and you don't need to mimic the agile methodology--you are just as agile in your thinking.

12/31/2013

This short piece went to LinkedIn.Com as a reply to a question in the Strategic Planning and Corporate Strategy Xchange. Thought you might like to read it here as well.

JT

In my view, resisters to change occur in virtually all projects over time. Some are 'silent resisters', who simply don't want change--they are perfectly happy, they think, in the current world. Most will go along with whatever decision is made, although they would really prefer to be left alone in their little niche.

Then there are 'active resisters', those who made it eminently clear they are opposed to any change affecting themselves. This group does not mind what you do to others--just leave them alone and go away. This group generally will never be supportive of a change effort--they will do what the boss tells them, and then figure out a way to continue their normal practices, while appearing to be supportive. This group, when expected, can be handled through risk mitigation, or even active involvement in the process change, with the hope they might -come around to the proposed changes as their own work.

The third group are the 'hidden resisters', those who stay in the background, as deep in the structure as possible, and make their displeasure with change known to small groups, through innuendo and casual conversation--but nothing frequent enough to raise the radar. You just can't put a finger on these people, but they are the most dangerous because of their insidious opposition. It is very hard to get real reasons from these people for their opposition, but you do get some sense of them through the discussions with other employees and managers. if you do, then your risk management plan can include potential issues that need avoidance or mitigation where possible.

Be aware, though, that these three types can be employees, managers, or even external stakeholders, and they all have seemingly plausible reasons for their opposition.

08/13/2013

Before we try to put the definition of the Age of Agility together, we need to spend a short time discussing another aspect of the equation. That is the concept of rationalization, and its effect on decision-making. Sometimes people decide they cannot do something, or do not need to do some particular thing to succeed. Now, in many instances, there is a perfectly rational reason to make these decisions. A travelling salesman needs a car to adequately do his job; riding the bus from place to place simply won't make the same impact. Of course, if the salesman has been working for many years, with established customers, and calls around to them to touch base, letting them know he will be without a car for a short time, they will probably work with him on orders for a short period when needed. That grace period is different from a person who decides to change his routine to one of calling, and messaging, without working out that detail with his customers. In short, what a person may believe will work, might not be the desired solution for the customer. Without the two in synch, the result is probably a bad decision, based on something we call rationalization--the assumption that a decision is right, only because the person making it thinks it is right, without considered thought. Rationalization often comes from a feeling of over-confidence, based on personal experience and training. Everyone uses rationalization at one time or another simply because they feel they are right, and have faith in their personal thought process. Since they are 'right' a good percentage of the time (pick a percentage yourself that you think is accurate), they infer to themselves in specific decisions that their decision fits into the 'right' category. That kind of decision-making is not only dangerous, but it can also be addicting. When just a couple of decisions prove to lead to success, the sense of 'right' in other decisions is increased. Eventually, that enhanced sense of 'right' leads to decisions not well-thought out, but instead simply hunches, supported by ago.

Over time these decisions, made without real analysis and thought, build a sense of complacency in the mind of the manager, which goes a bit like this: "I need to consider doing something about Project X, and whether or not it makes sense to pursue it, fund it, and support it. Some of my managers support it; some do not. They are looking to me for a decision. Well, to me it seems that we are doing just fine in our niche, and do not need to expand out into areas where we have no experience or leverage. After all, our sales are staying right up there, our marketing is well-accepted, and our accounts have been with us for years. A couple have gone, but we continue to be strong with the rest. From my perspective, there is no logical reason to commit our resources to something new and not yet proven. I think we need to continue to bang away at our main business product line, and let others take the tentative steps to go in other directions. Our people have the knowledge and experience to catch up quickly if some new direction seems advised in the future."

What starts as a desire for stability-complacency-gradually evolves into something else. While the manager above thought he was going through a personal analysis process (and he might have been in his own mind), what was actually happening in the dialogue above was a so-called 'negative analysis', evaluating a list of reasons not to take a step in the new direction. This manager feels it is easier to stay in the current company niche, rather than compete for a new market, which might not be as long-lived or profitable. In this case, the analysis centers on the reasons for not doing something.

That approach is quite different from the next dialogue example, which comes from the opposite direction; the manager firmly believes the company is well-positioned, perhaps a leader, in their current market, giving them no good reason to move or expand their offerings. This kind of personal analysis goes something like this: "Well, I listened to them at the meeting, and heard the presentations on why we should start this new line. I thought to myself then, and I still think that we make a mistake going from a position of unquestioned leadership in our market, and diluting it to take on something which is nothing more than a fad. After all, only one or two of our customers have brought up this new product, and they don't seem that interesting; just inquiring as far as I can see. We should not start planning and developing something they probably will not even buy. We need to get our sales people information on the fad, and why the customer doesn't need it for their own shops. if it ever becomes something, and I don't think it will, we can ramp up then, if the customers still want it."

This is a case of classic denial. There is no analysis here; only a set of personal statements, which are mostly conjecture, and designed to reinforce in his mind that the decision to stay in the market as they are at present, is a correct one.

Rationalization is a handy tool for complacent mind. It provides reinforcement for someone who has no real desire to be a change-maker. Taken together, these two actions are the greatest inhibitors to agility in the workplace, and have to be carefully monitored to prevent disaster.

Copyright(c) 2013, John V Tieso. All rights reserved. Quoting from the article is authorized, provided attribution and acknowledgement are referenced in the article or paper.

Opposing both agility and ability is the sense of complacency -- the feeling of contentment or self-satisfaction, even in the face of danger or controversy. Most people think of the five natural senses, but there are others as well, and they can be both supportive or debilitating over time. This sense, at least for a leader, is one of the most serious, since complacency can destroy an organization. As you will see below, complacency often accompanies an unawareness of pending danger or controversy, and, unless overcome, can easily lead to disaster.

Many of you will recall the myriad of catalogs which came out early in the fall, around Thanksgiving, and were primarily intended for the so-to-be Christmas shopper. Yet, in the last five years, most of the those catalogs have disappeared from the home, replaced by the Internet. The change to electronic buying --e-trade-- does not mean that direct media marketing has disappeared, but it certainly has changed its approach to selling in the marketplace For a number of firms, that change meant disaster. Some firms adopted the Internet themselves, using their large mailing lists well. They invited their patrons to join them on the Internet, and soon amassed an even-larger e-mail list to direct their message over this 'new' medium. I remember one former catalog maker who asked their customers to return a card, include the e-mail addresses of several of their friends', and receive a small gift. Other firms were not so lucky. Some folded, some sold their mailing lists, and others lingered, eventually disappearing as well. Still others adopted the internet, but had no real idea how to market in this new medium. The long story made short here, is that the World-Wide Web (WWW) came along, and those whose vision saw it as a new marketing medium, were quickly up and running, turning their business plan from one emphasizing direct personal contact through physical mailings, to one which still made contact, but virtually over the Web. Another aspect of complacency is even more interesting to our continuing discussion. That is the organization which has often been around for many years, probably still owned by the family or group which created it, and considers themselves to be a major player for specific products or services.Their quality is excellent, their sales staff active and effective, their manufacturing or acquisition staff careful to get only the best raw materials, and their marketing staff alwys looking for new avenues to market their offerings. In the face of all this, their market share slowly slips, a few points at a time; nothing to worry about in management's view, but over the longer period they just seem to slide down in the public's view. Other comapnies are beating them to the punch in new, or expended markets, many time with more inferior goods or service offerings, but expanding their market percentage as they deliver goods and services quickly.

Finally, banking and investment advisors stop answering phone calls, or don't seem to have the enthisiams they once showed for compnay results. The questions at shareholder meetings become more pointed, while management continues to believe it is doing their job well. Sound familiar? This scenario happens virtually every day, among large companies and the smaller ones as well, and all too often results in sellouts, buyouts, or 'getouts' from the industry. Management looks like they were caught unawares of changing conditions, or didn't care about indicators. But is that truly the case? Well, i'm not convinced that a good management staff really doesn't care, or gets caught unawares on the health of their organization. I am convinced that the long-term effect of adhering to a set of 'Laws of stability' as a means of overall success have been dramtically overstated, and over-emphasized. A recent article on Edcuation Week Online, "Complacency: A Leadership Imperative"(1), discusses the indicators which Ryan Bretag, the author, believes to be a the core of the rise of complacency in the workplace. Several of these indicators bear on our continuing discussion. The first, 'Difficult conversations are avoided' is perhaps the hallmark of the rise of complacency. People simply avoid any discussion, which indicates that management's decisions may not be the road to go in the future. Another indicator bears that out, in saying, 'Management and day-to-day tasks are the focus'. While it is certainly true that management must care about daily operations, good management will always make time for deciding whether or not the current operations benefit the customers, the shareholder, and other stakeholders, whose loss could impact the firm severely. As Bretag continues, 'Areas of potential growth are ignored'. We will discuss that perspective further in another article on rationalizing business decisions. One of Bretag's principal indicators, 'Hubris Born of Success' is an inciteful indicator, in that every good manager and executive wants to think their decisions are the 'right' ones, based on their training, experience, and their understanding of the marketplace. That is the crux of the problem. Complacency arises most often when managers begin to believe they know the market well--better than others. I listened to a webcast recently where one commenter from the audience was pointing out that "If I don't know what my market is doing, who does?" Another made the comment that "Management, if it is a good management team, simply can't chase every possible rainbow. There has to be a sense of stability or there will eventually be chaos." Of the two, it would seem clear to most that the second speaker was at least partially right, and the first speaker was simply avoiding reality, while pumping himself up for the audience. Conversely, Let's say, for a moment, the speaker of that quote was Donald Trump, or perhaps Warren Buffett. Would the statement still be bravado? Perhaps not. In the case of those two men, and perhaps a few others, we would look further for clues to why they made the statement.

Then, there is the second commenter; that statement does seem more logical, on the whole, but is it really covering up the fact that the management of the company is rationalizing the 'nothing' they are doing in the name of stability and complacency? We'll discuss that in the next piece, 'Rationalizing Business Decisions.'

Stability in the business environment does not have to mean complacency in decision-making. What is should mean is doing thoughful analysis on the market, and the implications for the firm within that environment, then making decisions that support the growth and vitality of the firm.